University of Colorado researcher Will Yeck checks seismometers near Greeley on Aug. 14, 2014, in the wake of an earthquake earlier last year that some in the area believe may have been caused by wastewater injection wells used in fracking. (RJ Sangosti, Denver Post file)

My father-in-law, Dr. George Bardwell, was the Denver statistician who, in 1966, first linked the earthquakes in Denver to the deep injection well at Rocky Mountain Arsenal.

The Arsenal produced chemical weapons such as nerve gas. The injection well was built in 1961 and shortly after injection commenced, the number and magnitude of earthquakes increased in Denver and around the state. The largest was 5.3.

When this association became clear, the solution to the hazard was to close and drain the well. Residual effects were not short-lived.

A 2015 congressional report found that 650 of the chemicals used in fracking were known or possible carcinogens. In addition to earthquakes, what are the implications for our water supplies?

We should remove the hazard and certainly not put the burden on Coloradans who have little to say in the matter.

Barbara Donachy,Denver

This letter was published in the May 1 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

University of Colorado researcher Will Yeck checks seismometers near Greeley on Aug. 14, 2014, in the wake of an earthquake earlier last year that some in the area believe may have been caused by wastewater injection wells used in fracking. (RJ Sangosti, Denver Post file)

A new map of earthquake activity due to fracking has been issued by the U.S. Geological Survey. Scientist Mark Peterson suggests, “If you live in one of these areas of induced seismicity, you should educate yourself and those around you for protective actions you can take.” With that advice I called a couple of insurance companies for a quote. One company has a policy for earthquakes but not if caused by fracking. Another told me they had one for fracking but with a $50,000 deductible. Something is wrong here and I can’t reasonably protect myself. Don’t take my word for it — call your insurance company.

Why should the homeowner have to take all the risk? I believe the companies that are causing the problem should have to pay into a fund. Or better yet, why not change the technique so this will not happen?

Terry Lipstein,Loveland

This letter was published in the April 27 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Over the last several weeks, Sen. Michael Bennet has been using the debate on the Senate’s budget to elevate the economic and national security threats posed by climate change and the need for action. Fortunately, both of his measures passed the Senate with bipartisan support.

Communities across Colorado are already dealing with the damaging effects of extreme weather, which will only be made worse by climate change. At the same time, we are seeing the strong economic, health and environmental benefits of growing clean energy sources. More than 6,000 clean energy jobs were created in Colorado in 2014 alone, according to a report by Environmental Entrepreneurs. We appreciate Bennet’s leadership to elevate the need to act on climate change and look forward to continuing to work with him to confront this crisis.

Pete Maysmith,Denver

Gene Karpinski,Washington, D.C.

Pete Maysmith is executive director of Conservation Colorado. Gene Karpinski is president of the League of Conservation Voters.

This letter was published in the April 27 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Letter-writer Nancy Stocker obviously did not think through the result of letting golf decline and golf courses go away to save water.

Every time I hear of a golf course closing, I hear of a developer wanting the property to put in more high-density housing. That would obviously neutralize the water saving that Stocker suggests, plus add more traffic, pollution, and possibly increase crime in those areas.

One would think that any citizen would like to see their city stay as green as possible and encourage young people to participate in a sport that advocates the honor system and self-discipline.

Mavis Richardson,Aurora

This letter was published in the April 15 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

From left, U.S. Forest Service fisheries biologist Matt Grove, Forest Service employee Aaron Mayville and National Forest Foundation regional director Marcus Selig walk along the Eagle River last month. (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)

Great news about the U.S. Forest Service’s plans to restore headwaters of the Eagle River. Kudos to all involved for their cooperative work and preparation.

There is one native but now absent species not mentioned. It’s one that hunted elk, taking the weak and sick and thereby strengthening the herd, controlling elk numbers and maintaining a balance in the ecosystem: the wolf.

Perhaps someday soon we will be making cooperative efforts to restore it, too.

Monica Glickman,Denver

This letter was published in the April 5 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Climate change will become more and more expensive. Allen Best described some of what the legislature’s Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study shows we?ll have to pay in the future.

Why don’t we create incentives to cut down on greenhouse gases? Americans have creativity and ingenuity. We just need reasons to be more efficient.

A steadily increasing fee on carbon fuels, with all the collected money refunded evenly to all taxpayers, will turn that ingenuity loose. Innovators will create new products that save. And thrifty people will get refunds bigger than the higher-energy costs in the things they buy.

We can decrease the size of government. We don’t need more new regulations. We don’t need the EPA to control CO2 emitted from power plants. We only need smart incentives.

Kendall Gerdes,Denver

This letter was published in the March 13 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

A loaded CSX Transportation coal train on a spur track at Blackhawk Mining in Printer, Ky. New regulations on carbon emissions proposed by the Obama administration have reportedly alarmed politicians on both sides of the aisle. (Getty Images file)

While there are places where government regulation is the only effective way of solving problems, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan may not be the best way to reduce our carbon emission problem.

A better way of dealing with this is a revenue-neutral fee-and-dividend plan. Place a price on carbon by taxing fossil-fuel extraction, and then return all of that revenue back to the American people, allowing market forces to determine how to generate cleaner energy.

Variations on this theme have been put forward by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Harvard Professor Dale Jorgenson in his book “Double Dividend,” and the Citizens Climate Lobby.

Economic models show that we both reduce carbon emissions and stimulate our economy by doing this.

Douglas M. Alde,Denver

This letter was published in the March 8 edition.

We should not be shocked that a regulatory body within the Obama administration would propose rules that increase its own leverage and power. These rules, which disregard energy reliability and affordability, are more of the same as President Obama tries to please his extremist environmental base. Maybe their influence will decrease, as it seems even some Democrats are awakening to the likely results of his shortsighted leftist policies. Thank heaven we are less than two years from Obama leaving office, but we might not survive his “legacy.”

Doug Wilhelm,Littleton

This letter was published in the March 8 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Rossina Schroeer-Santiago, a Green Valley Ranch resident, said she worried that fracking could affect quality of life in her neighborhood during a news conference on Tuesday in front of the City and County Building. Activists pushed for a moratorium on fracking in Denver. (Jon Murray, The Denver Post)

I was surprised to find so much hyperbole in a serious newspaper. It reminded me of the hype and anti-science hysteria surrounding vaccines that’s been in the news lately. The column rattled off study after unidentified study, each making more fantastical claims than the first. If the idea was to scare people, it probably succeeded. But it was missing science.

Fracking has been done safely in Colorado for decades, and the Environmental Protection Agency has never found fracking fluid in underground drinking water. Those are facts.

The oil and gas industry, like any industry, is not perfect, but it operates under some of the most stringent regulations in the country. Still, it contributes $29 billion to our state’s economy each year and more than 100,000 good-paying jobs.

The facts — and science — are on the side of industry. Leave the scare tactics to the anti-vaxxers.

Peter T. Moore,Denver

The writer is board chairman for Vital for Colorado, a coalition of business and economic development groups.

This letter was published in the Feb. 15 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

“America’s lifestyle expectations are far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence,” billionaire Jeff Greene said earlier this month at the World Economic Forum Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (AFP/Getty Images)

The Post’s editorial trashed Jeff Greene for having stated, “America’s lifestyle expectations are far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence,” yet Greene is exactly right. It’s The Post that needs to awake to what humans are now doing to our planet.

Starting in the mid-1980s, the totality of all humans (and Americans especially) have been consuming the Earth’s resources at unsustainable rates — geological resources and biological resources as well as the Earth’s ability to absorb our wastes. Maurice Strong, the leader of the United Nations? 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, had it right about global population growth when he said, “Either we slow it or nature will do it for us, but with great brutality.” The same is now true about economic growth, which all sensible commentators know cannot go on forever in a finite world.

Numerous scientists and organizations argue that we are now consuming not only the Earth?s annual productivity, we are obtaining half again that much from nature’s feedstocks, meaning even less productivity in the years to come. If humanity fails to squeeze its activities and consumption of resources down to a level consistent with the Earth’s remaining ability to meet our needs, and soon, then nature will do it for us — but with great brutality.

John R. Bermingham,Denver

The writer is a former Colorado state senator.

This letter was published in the Jan. 30 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.